Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> somehow better, I've already said:
>
> ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes
> ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
> ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
> ] independent of whether it's required by the license.
>
> Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> thing for a license to require you to do.
Ok, so what you are saying then is that only reasonable requirements
can be in a DFSG license. The DFSG of course has no such thing in its
actual text; but I have no objection to adding it.
Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
isn't. I think that *both* are unreasonable, and for the same
reason. You think one is reasonable and the other is not; please
explain the basis for this determination.